JUDGMENT P.R. Vyas Bhiman, Member. - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated September 2, 1975. By means of this order the Additional Commissioner has rejected the revision under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed before him and upheld the order of the S.D.O. dated March 13, 1975 allowing mutation in the name of the O.P. in place of the present revisionist. 2. The land in dispute was the holding of the revisionist but it was put to auction by the civil court and was purchased by the O.P., who applied for mutation. The revisionist appeared as an objector and according to the order of the S.D.O. the only objection taken was that the revisionist had applied for cancellation of the decree of the civil court, and therefore, mutation should not be allowed. The S.D.O. found to strength in this plea and he allowed the mutation. In revisionist proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, another plea was taken that the revisionist belong to the Scheduled Caste whereas the O.P. was a Thakur, and, therefore, mutation should not be allowed. The Additional Commissioner in his order has not dealt with the latter aspect but he has dismissed the revision. Hence the present proceedings. 3. The only ground taken before me by the learned counsel for the revisionist was that the sale was hit by Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which prohibits a Bhumidhar who belongs to the Scheduled Caste from transferring any land by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease to a person not belonging to a Schedule Caste except with the previous approval of the Collector. Learned counsel for the U.P. on the other hand argued that the restriction of Section 157-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act does not apply to a court sale and for this view he relied on an analogous relating to Section 154 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 484 of 1967 reported in 1968 R.D. 168. 4. The short question in this case, therefore, is whether the restriction of Section 157-A will apply to a sale by civil court. Writ No. 484 of 1967 reported in 1968 R.D. 168. 4. The short question in this case, therefore, is whether the restriction of Section 157-A will apply to a sale by civil court. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Section is complete in itself and the only exception to the general prohibition ought to be looked for in the section itself. According to him since sales in execution have not been specifically exempted under this section, no exception can be claimed in such sales. To my mind, this is clearly misconceived. In the case decided by the Hon'ble High Court to which a reference has already been made, the matter in that case related to an execution sale which went against the provisions of Section 154 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Discussing this section the Hon'ble High Court has observed as follows:- "A Bhumidhar has right to transfer his holding except to a person who will possess more than 12 acres of land. That appears to be more in the nature of a personal restriction on a Bhumidhar than on the transferability of the land itself. Similarly, that section does not deal with the situation which may arise by way of attachment and sale of the holding in execution proceedings. The Court puts up in auction, the interest of the Bhumidhar in the land. The Court is not subjected to the condition which has been imposed upon the Bhumidhar, in respect of his right of disposal as an owner. These circumstances show that Sec. 154 places a personal restriction upon the Bhumidhar himself in relation to his right of transfer voluntarily. That restriction is not applicable to compulsory sales." 5. It will be seen that the restriction under Section 157-A is worded in exactly the same way as the restriction imposed under Section 154, and, therefore, cannot be interpreted as anything other than a personal restriction placed on a Bhumidhar. It, therefore, does not apply to court sales. The mutation was thus rightly allowed and I see no reason to interfere. The revision is accordingly dismissed.